We, the undersigned, request that the developers of JAWS® for Windows please provide us a free/cost effective, stripped down testing alternative. This will lead to more websites being tested to suit your software, resulting in an increased audience and hence increased requirement for JAWS.

“As for JAWS being ‘broken’, remember that it is *not* a aural web page reader. It is a screen reader.”
From what I can tell, the way it treats web pages awkwardly places it somewhere between the two, which can cause problems for good developers who Do The Right Thing with HTML/CSS.

I signed the petition, despite what Tom Gilder pointed out. If Freedom Scientific made more of an effort to get web designers on board, it would only benefit them in the long run because web designers find different problems than web users.

Simon: The problem is that Freedom Scientific doesn’t give a flying leap about user feedback and developer feedback.

Unrelated to web, I develop MS Access based applications. I of course make sure they are fully accessible since they are designed to be used in Centers for Independent Living (small non-profit, non-residential service and advocacy organizations operated by and for people with disabilities). There is a bug in JAWS (well, there are many, but this one in particular) gives problems for a user trying to expand a combo box.

When contacted, tech support basically said “yeah, it’s a bug, we’re aware of it, and we’re not planning on fixing it”…

We wouldn’t need access to JAWS if it simply worked from the HTML and ignored screen styles (and, ideally, supported aural style sheets). If it continues to misbehave then all a free version will do is encourage the practice of bodging code for a broken browser, which is something we’re all trying to move away from.

Interestingly enough, I’ve had a few people advocate *against* testing with screen reader, on the basis that there is no way someone using the software sporadically could be familiar enough with the thing to really get a feel of how their site looks/how usable it is.

While having a bit of an idea might be good, thinking there’s a bug where there might not be because you don’t know how to use the software could cause more problems than it solves.

Also, one of the problem is that not all screen readers behave the same way.

Personally, I’d like to see a petition where we’d demand to see the price go down for USERS, considering the exhorbitant cost (Just purchased a full version of JAWS, plus SMA cost us over US $1,200). Now *that* would make more sense to me :-)

I was just going to post what Tom did. JAWS, AFAIK, let’s you use the full version for testing. The only catch is the time limit that you need to reboot to reset. This petition seems completely pointless and rather ignorant.

As for JAWS being ‘broken’, remember that it is *not* a aural web page reader. It is a screen reader. It is used to navigate the OS as a whole, reading whatever is on screen. So, it actually is doing what it is supposed to do, reading what a sighted person sees on the screen.

The sooner someone comes up with a GPL reader the better - especially for the people who would use it on a day to day basis.

An interesting comparison is that Opera give away developer versions regularly for browser advocacy. I have a free registered version at the office from their programme. Indeed after using it at work, I now pay for my home copy I like it that much.

“What’s wrong with testing for accessibility using w3m or lynx, having validated one’s code?”

the same that’s wrong with writing perfectly clean xhtml + css, validating it, and then expecting every browser to display it correctly. as with browsers, bugs exist, and we need to work around them. and we’re not just talking about some minor spacing issues because of different box model implementations or something…potentially, sections of your page/site can become completely unusable and/or hidden from users with screenreaders just because of a bug in JAWS…
so yeh, THAT’S why…

Anne - JAWS is not a web browser, aural or otherwise. It doesn’t pick up aural style sheets. It reads what is on the screen.

Martin - Because JAWS is not an aural browser, your XHTML or HTML or whatever you’re writing cannot be expected to render in any standard sort of way. Therefore testing is important.

This is one of the big reasons why developer JAWS is necessary - since no one actually runs it, many myths and assumptions surround what it can and can’t do.

No one is saying you’re bad people for making these assumptions either; quite the opposite actually. That you even care is wonderful - it’s not your fault that screen readers are mysterious and expensive pieces of software. Thanks for signing the petition all; let’s hope something comes of this.

Everything is broken. No matter what, we are always doing damage control as designers…JAWS is broken, IE6 is broken, heck, even Mozilla doesn’t always do the right thing.

I have moved away from bad browser-specific code like many, but still use the box model hack and I get over it when my background image doesn’t show up in NN6…but, I would at least like the benefit of knowing how my sites “appear” to JAWS.

More knowledge, as Nic pointed out, can be dangerous if we aren’t careful…but I still choose it over ignorance any day.

I know they had more info on their site a couple of weeks ago but I can’t seem to find it now :) While it is not a solution to the problem, it is a good opportunity for all of us to check our code against JAWS 5.0 beta.

as a sidenote/question regarding the demo versions: are you not swimming in murky, grey legal waters if you use a demo version for purpouses other than the evaluation of the full product in the light of a possible purchase ? wouldn’t the use of the continued, consistent use of the demo for site testing purpouses be equivalent to running a dodgy, cracked copy ?

Sorry, but you’re dead wrong. You make it sound like a ‘put up or shut up’ proposition, but I’m guessing you’ve never had to try talking management into spending thousands of dollars on the latest Adobe and Macromedia treats, hundreds of dollars on more memory, and then, oh yeah, an extra grand because we have to hit F5 a few times to make sure 0.x% of our users see the page properly.

I completely agree that it’s highway robbery to all users, but it’s “asking blind users to subsidize the use of assistive technologies by sighted users.”? Come on Kynn, it’s software - it’s not a limited resource.

The *only reason*, and I emphasize because you must understand this if nothing else, but the ONLY reason the developers who have signed this petition are interested are because they have a social conscience and a feeling of obligation toward all users of their sites. Look at the last paragraph of this comment, for example: http://www.mezzoblue.com/cgi-bin/mt/mezzo/archives/000234.asp#c001375

The alternative is NOT to grudgingly shell out the thousand, as you seem to suggest; the alternative is to ignore the users of the software, throw out a text-only version of our site (which we all know isn’t accessible either), or just put up a big sign saying ‘Sorry blind users, but we can’t afford you.’ The users are the casualties in the war, and how much sense does that make?

These are the attitudes that we the developers are trying to combat, and faulting us for actually caring is a bad move.

While I appreciate that Freedom Scientific is the market leader, shouldn’t we also encourage IBM, GW Micro and others to come up with a cheaper/free alternative to their products?

In lieu of using a screen reader, though I now have the demo of JAWS, I’ve used pwWebSpeak to run through some sites (http://www.soundlinks.com/pwgen.htm).

pwWebSpeak is a speech browser - not a screen reader - now somewhat out-of-date as development ceased some years ago. But it trawls through your markup and reads out what it finds, ignoring style sheets and finding headings, links, images, lists, etc.

I’ve found it gives a useful indication of what users of screen readers might encounter when surfing.

I hate to be put in the position of agreeing with Kynn’s wild rant on the subject, but this petition is ridiculous, and any self-respecting web designer who signed it should be ashamed of themselves (that includes you, Dave S). Freedom Scientific provides a fully functional demonstration version of the latest version of JAWS (currently 4.5.1) that you can run for 40 minutes. Then it stops working until you reboot, then you can run it for another 40 minutes, and so forth ad infinitum. There is no upper limit on usage. The petition claims that the demo version “expires”, which is blatantly false.

Kynn is also correct that JAWS is a complex program with many configuration options and keyboard shortcuts. It is a world unto itself, and you will need to spend at least a solid week with it to become comfortable with it. I did exactly that in my research for writing “Dive Into Accessibility” – 40 minutes at a time. At the time I wondered why no one else seemed to have done what I was doing, and since then I have often wondered why there is so much confusion and ignorance over how JAWS interprets pages when a free download is available for testing. Now I see that it was because you were all waiting for the world to be handed to you on a silver platter.

I’m definitely not ashamed of my initial support, and I don’t think anyone else should be. The resulting dialogue was invaluable, and the first time I became aware a demo version existed.

Those claiming this petition was about designers assuming they have more right to the software than the blind have entirely missed the spirit in which the signatures were gathered. These are people who actually give a damn; to castigate any of them for misunderstanding or ignorance is to alienate.

Let’s put this behind us and move on. Our hearts are in the right place.

IBM has its Home Page Reader 3 – for around $130. Obviously, it isn’t going to have as many functions as JAWS – and there are differences in what is read and how it’s read – but it’s certainly better than nothing. What I don’t understand is why Opera can’t add screen reader functionality to the PAID version of their browser – they’re pretty close already.

Umm, Could we perhaps do a global search/replace on this whole thread… Where one could replace the word “JAWS” with “Macromedia MX Suite”? Comes down to the same thing doesn’t it? Or perhaps you guys would like to also charge $50 for a website like the schoolboy next door… My point is: Custom product + small market + few customers = higher price. If you aren’t happy with the price, develop your own software. I do believe that is exactly what you guys would tell a customer if he wanted a top end website (a software product) for 50 bucks. You get what u pay for….

We are web designers, we get paid well, they - the user - may well be blind, may be on state benefits, may be working who knows? - the point being if they can afford jaws, then surely we can too? or alternativly use a different screenreader!

Jaws certainly is not the most popular - window-eyes, IBM Home Page Reader, heck there are several available for linux for free! are all equally as popular, it just depends on which section of the blind community you ask. As for accessibility testing, validate your code and you’re halfway there, check against the WAI’s priority levels and you’re done - worried about the cost? - if you’re a competant hand coder it should be quicker than building tag-soup type code!

And at the end of the day, accessibility is not just about blind or partially sighted users, its about learning levels, motability, and all sorts of other disabilities. so come on, stop whining and buy it, or not - use something else.

Actually … all the ones who are any good are still being paid well. Its all the hacks who made money when the market was oversaturated with clients who are finding it rough to get paid at all, much less paid well.